The Man With The Golden Gun in Review...

colly wrote:

That girl was so dumb she probably walked in his room accidentally, was too foolish to keep up any pretence of professionalism and just decided to try and sleep with him.

I like that better than her lame attempt at playing hard to get

Ah, Golden Gun - one of my favorites.

Of course, I'm biased - I'd lived in South-east Asia five years ealier, so the scenes of Hong Kong and Bangkok were like home movies for me.

Christopher Lee remains the only Bond villain I would want to be - were I a homocidal maniac.

The Golden Gun itself - the coolest gadget ever - and it's not even from Q Branch! (I finally got one of my own this year, after only 35 years of wishing).

The cars...well, I learned a valuable lesson in 1979, and that was that AMC made junk.

As I mellow with age I find I'm not even all that annoyed by the return of J.W. Pepper anymore (of course I tend to drink a lot while watching certain movies).

Britt Eckland wasn't there to act, she was there to look dazzling in a bikini. If I'd almost had my hand sawn off by a laser beam, I'd probably be forgiving if I knew it was her splendid rump that had activated the thing.

Even an indifferent John Barry Score is better than most others. Only George Martin holds up in comparison.

Personally, I like the way Guy Hamilton directs and the way Tom Mankiewicz writes - with and without Richard Maibaum. DAF and LALD also count as favorites of mine.

There, I said it, and I remain a proud defender. For me GG isn't a guilty pleasure, it's an essential.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Christopher Lee remains the only Bond villain I would want to be - were I a homocidal maniac.

Interesting observation. I've never thought about what kind of villain I would want to be. I guess if I had to choose it would be Necros and/or Max Zorin.

I like this movie, but the coincidence that Scaramanga would be after the very same McGuffin Bond had been dispatched to obtain before his life was threatened bothers me. Also, the pace is hurt by that scene in the school and the subsequent boat chase.

On the plus side, this film has a very good cast in Moore, Lee and Adams, and Britt Ekland is easy on the eyes, which doesn't hurt matters. Most scenes are compelling, even if the whole doesn't come together all that well. And the score is good.

This is a film fails to work on any level for me, try as I might to approach it in the right spirit it just dogmatically ends up a dissapointment and since its release has wallowed at the bottom of my Bond list, so be warned negativity and extreme subjectivity abounds below.

Sadly featuing at both ends of the film Scaramanga's funhouse strikes me as stupid rather than challenging, I guess its useful if you expect to face a gun toting opponent in a fairground - assuming they run into every ride in the process, but how often will that happen - all in all a set up like this, in the hands of anyone other than a senile eccentric, makes the owner look like a right Charley rather than a potential threat.

Barry's music is always solid but like the film here it never really ignites, that machine gun motif comes across as a deperate means to instill some life, but the creature simply refuses to stir. Like the film it's probably my least favourite of his scores for Bond.

Once into the film proper the pacing is all over the place, sequences start and stall rather than begin and end and none of the characters remotely approach the second dimension. Moore does play a tougher version of Bond but imo he's not at all comfortable with that approach and it therefore comes across gratuitously callous rather than focussed or professional.

I do recall my excitement at having Christopher Lee on the cast, my early film appreciation began with Bond and Hammer Horror and here they were coming togther, but Scaramanga never really came to life as a person, or a threat, and for some reason he was associated with that dreadful Nik Nak, who was neither funny or threatening. As a Bond girl, Eckland seemed to have the credentials to work well.....but Goodnight is a character that belongs in the cheapest of Bond tv parodies....or at best by Matt Helm's side. The fetaure stunt is imo much less interesting or convincing than the short car chase that is forced to peter out early to make way for it, the jokey whistle effect & JW pratfalls simply add salt to an open wound by this point.

The only redeeming feature I can find in TMWTGG is the location work, its all but impossible not to want to see more but despite the sweeping beauty of Bond's journey to Scaramanga's island the final confrontation is another damp squib that stalls early and undermines both competing characters with a cheap and dirty resolution.

Fortunately much better was to come.

TMWTGG - 4/10

The best thing about GOLDEN GUN is the funhouse. Oh, how I wish we'd see something so openly silly, bizarre, and wonderful in a Craig Bond film.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Ah, Golden Gun - one of my favorites.

Of course, I'm biased - I'd lived in South-east Asia five years ealier, so the scenes of Hong Kong and Bangkok were like home movies for me.

Christopher Lee remains the only Bond villain I would want to be - were I a homocidal maniac.

The Golden Gun itself - the coolest gadget ever - and it's not even from Q Branch! (I finally got one of my own this year, after only 35 years of wishing).

The cars...well, I learned a valuable lesson in 1979, and that was that AMC made junk.

As I mellow with age I find I'm not even all that annoyed by the return of J.W. Pepper anymore (of course I tend to drink a lot while watching certain movies).

Britt Eckland wasn't there to act, she was there to look dazzling in a bikini. If I'd almost had my hand sawn off by a laser beam, I'd probably be forgiving if I knew it was her splendid rump that had activated the thing.

Even an indifferent John Barry Score is better than most others. Only George Martin holds up in comparison.

Personally, I like the way Guy Hamilton directs and the way Tom Mankiewicz writes - with and without Richard Maibaum. DAF and LALD also count as favorites of mine.

There, I said it, and I remain a proud defender. For me GG isn't a guilty pleasure, it's an essential.

Superb post.

I also agree with AMC Hornet above.

Recently one of my Facebook friends (who is not a Bond fan per se) posted a random comment that Roger Moore was the best Bond. At this point I asked what is the best Moore Bond film, and the answer given was MWTGG. I realise this does not necessarily mean Golden Gun is affirmatively the best Moore pic, but it illustrates what I often find: People remember the film for elements like Scarumanga, his third nipple, Nick Nack, the golden gun and the magnificent locations.

This is the final film where the production team really had the action/adventure genre to themselves and it represents a great spectrum of classic Bondian entertainment. It has good humour, great dialogue and more importantly is probably the last Bond movie with some very cleverly conceived suspenseful scenes that keep the audience second guessing (scenes that only Hamilton excels at). From the opening bars of Barry's score as Maud Adam's character settles down on what is now James Bond Island, I'm totally hooked.

livingdaylights wrote:

I also agree with AMC Hornet above.

Recently one of my Facebook friends (who is not a Bond fan per se) posted a random comment that Roger Moore was the best Bond. At this point I asked what is the best Moore Bond film, and the answer given was MWTGG. I realise this does not necessarily mean Golden Gun is affirmatively the best Moore pic, but it illustrates what I often find: People remember the film for elements like Scarumanga, his third nipple, Nick Nack, the golden gun and the magnificent locations.

This is the final film where the production team really had the action/adventure genre to themselves and it represents a great spectrum of classic Bondian entertainment. It has good humour, great dialogue and more importantly is probably the last Bond movie with some very cleverly conceived suspenseful scenes that keep the audience second guessing (scenes that only Hamilton excels at). From the opening bars of Barry's score as Maud Adam's character settles down on what is now James Bond Island, I'm totally hooked.

I find the film to be perhaps the least interesting of Moore's films. Maybe the biggest problem is that there is no driving plot that keeps the film moving, and there's really not even a villain to the film, since Scaramanga was not the one who sent the bullet with 007's name on it. The score is excellent and the location work is interesting, but most of the film is an absolute waste.

How does the fact that Andrea was the one who sent Bond the bullet mean that Scaramanga isn't the villain of the film?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I find the film to be perhaps the least interesting of Moore's films. Maybe the biggest problem is that there is no driving plot that keeps the film moving, and there's really not even a villain to the film, since Scaramanga was not the one who sent the bullet with 007's name on it. The score is excellent and the location work is interesting, but most of the film is an absolute waste.

I think the film was designed not to rest on a driving plot. The M briefing scene is the only part that required the audience to pay attention, then it's sit back and enjoy the film. That's Hamilton's approach for all his Bonds. It's horses for courses I guess - you'll either like this approach or not.

Loomis wrote:

How does the fact that Andrea was the one who sent Bond the bullet mean that Scaramanga isn't the villain of the film?

It is what it is. It's meant to be an interesting twist when the audience discovers that Scaramanga didn't send the bullet, but all it does is undercut his credibility as the film's villain. There's even one scene where Scaramanga tells Bond he has nothing against him and hopes their paths never cross again; that doesn't detract from Lee's good performance, but it does undermine the ability of the film to sell Scaramanga as the chief protagonist when he has no particular mission against 007, nor does his overall objective imperil millions of people. If Scaramanga wins, he sells a piece of solar technology that'll make him millions of dollars, but no one dies. There's just not a lot riding on this plot.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

How does the fact that Andrea was the one who sent Bond the bullet mean that Scaramanga isn't the villain of the film?

It is what it is. It's meant to be an interesting twist when the audience discovers that Scaramanga didn't send the bullet, but all it does is undercut his credibility as the film's villain. There's even one scene where Scaramanga tells Bond he has nothing against him and hopes their paths never cross again; that doesn't detract from Lee's good performance, but it does undermine the ability of the film to sell Scaramanga as the chief protagonist when he has no particular mission against 007, nor does his overall objective imperil millions of people. If Scaramanga wins, he sells a piece of solar technology that'll make him millions of dollars, but no one dies. There's just not a lot riding on this plot.

Well, I disagree with all that. Since when did we have to have a fixed formula about how Bond and the villain relate to each other, how and why they first meet, and so on? Why do millions have to die if the villain accomplishes his goals? Surely all that leads to is cookie-cutter Bond movies?

Look at LICENSE REVOKED: Scaramanga initially has no quarrel with Bond and doesn't even know who he is or why he's after him. Although I know I'm whistling in the wind because you dislike LICENSE REVOKED.

I think they really wasted the million-dollar hitman idea by throwing in all that solar-energy nonsense. Why is Scaramanga interested in the solex, of all things? It's two plots stitched together very poorly.

From what I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), in the novel, Bond is sent to kill Scaramanga and gets close to him by gaining his trust. Posing as a gun-for-hire. Scaramanga's business outside of killing people (drugs? smuggling sugar or something? I don't remember) is never really important.

But Scaramanga's business in the film (selling the Solex) is the entire point of Bond's mission. Bond is sent to retrieve the device from whoever stole it... and this person just so happens to be the man with the golden gun. Pfui. And Bond isn't ever really in danger, because Scaramanga doesn't want to kill him. The whole section on Scaramanga's island, where Bond is just prancing around - talk about the fallacy of the talking killer. Bond doesn't even retrieve the Solex, either. Or save Andrea. I wonder in how many films Bond doesn't actually complete his assignment.

I quite like TMWTGG. It features one of the best villains in the series, and Moore is at his coldest as Bond.

The film is let down by some rather bizarre PMT moments from the regular cast members (M, Q and Moneypenny, who all appear strangely pissed off), and the stupid J W Pepper scenes, not forgetting the silly slide whistle which kills the impressive car stunt.

Other than that, I enjoy the whole 70's retro Hong Kong/Thailand backdrop, and Moore's and Lee's performances.

Loomis wrote:

Look at LICENSE REVOKED: Scaramanga initially has no quarrel with Bond and doesn't even know who he is or why he's after him. Although I know I'm whistling in the wind because you dislike LICENSE REVOKED.

Did I miss something or am I misreading your post? I took it that Scaramanga did know who Bond was because he had a life-size mannequin of Bond in his fun house that he shot the finger off of in the pre-title sequence.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I think they really wasted the million-dollar hitman idea by throwing in all that solar-energy nonsense. Why is Scaramanga interested in the solex, of all things? It's two plots stitched together very poorly.

Precisely. It's rather unclear as to why a man who prized his anonymity and contract-for-hire status would jeopardize his "golden" reputation by getting involved in some murky plot to steal the Rolex Agitator and make money off of it. Scaramanga was earning a million dollars a kill and now he was going risk it all to get involved in some questionable solar technology scheme? It just felt like the story conveniently ties together two plots that really never had anything to do with one another.

However, for me the highlights include: JW Pepper, the karate school girls and...yep, that's it.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Look at LICENSE REVOKED: Scaramanga initially has no quarrel with Bond and doesn't even know who he is or why he's after him. Although I know I'm whistling in the wind because you dislike LICENSE REVOKED.

Did I miss something or am I misreading your post? I took it that Scaramanga did know who Bond was because he had a life-size mannequin of Bond in his fun house that he shot the finger off of in the pre-title sequence.

Sorry, a typo on my part. I meant to type Sanchez, not Scaramanga. I was talking about LICENSE REVOKED.

By the time Andrea is killed and Goodnight is kidnapped, the whole angle of Scaramanga being Bond's dark side should have already been developed (and much more than it finally was), ready to explode in the climax and add some much needed intensity to it. Bond needing to kill Scaramanga not because he has the Solex, not because he has Goodnight, but because he represents a threat to who he is. Despite this not happening, the scenes in the island are compelling enough and the film is good fun, it's just that it feels a bit disjointed and disinterested. But if it is a triumph of any kind, it is a triumph of style, and that's what Bond is basically about, so I can forgive its shortcomings.

I just love the idea that Bond gets challenged to a modern day duel. Scaramanga, a fantastic villain who displays great chivalry in using one bullet to his opponents six or more.

A highlight of the film for sure, but had the story been tighter, the duel and its payoff would have had a great(er) impact. Christopher Lee elevates this film to heights that it doesn't quite deserve.

I actually don't get why a lot of people think that Christopher Lee was actually a really good Bond villain.  I feel that he's hardly given anything to work with here, and his character just comes off as forgettable overall, really.

He's better than the unsophisticated thug Fleming wrote about in the novel - you could almost see Daniel Craig playing him...

Yep, Lee's Scaramanga is a vast improvement over his cousin's Scaramanga. The latter is nothing but a one-dimensional hillbilly. Basically a Sheriff Dubya Pepper who can shoot straight.

It's not one of Moore's best, but Lee is very good indeed. Am fond of the dinner scene where Scaramanga proposes a toast to them being 'the best' and Bond is not happy at the comparison.

I just don't get why Lee is considered good, since he hardly is given anything good to work with in this script for a good Bond villain, at least in my opinion.